It seems that the mindset with a lot of photographers seems to be (from what I've been told) that photographers think they're above the model, either in TFP or paid shoots. It also seems to be a trend that money is king.
Here's the way I see it: A photographer pays a worthy model to better his/her own port, and thus pays for her time respectfully. The photog supplements some final work to the model in appreciation. Vice versa, a model pays a worthy photog for their time (and a set number of images,) to better this model's own portfolio, and the photog gets to use the images in his/her own port if they so wish. If shooting tfp, both parties come to a respectful agreement on how each can help one another with the transaction. To me, this is what I expect when I work with someone or when someone requests to work with me.
The way I see it happen all too frequently:
"I paid you so you have no rights."
"I paid you so I will decide if you get any images at all."
"You shouldn't be getting paid at all unless you're taking your clothes off."
"I paid you, so if you want images then we will work TFP." (..even though they reached out to me and I wouldn't pay them to work with or pay them for images willingly).
"I don't want to sign paperwork, I'm a free spirit." (paperwork reiterating agreed upon terms)
"Photographers hold all the rights to the images and models get what they get."
There seems to be such a stigma that models are born to this world "to look pretty" (as I've been told) for photographers who will do what they will. As far as legal rights go, it seems that models are lacking as well. Photographers seem to hold all the right at all times and models get no word in their equal contributions.
I must be crazy because this seems ridiculous to me. So, are my expectations too high and experiences realistic, or are my expectations on point and experiences unfortunate? I do a lot of TFP to help photogs build their port, because most TFP work I do doesn't benefit me at this point. Most of my paid work (what little of it there is) definitely doesn't benefit me and doesn't cover for all the TFP work I do. (Don't get me wrong, I respect and appreciate all whom I work with).
Please be nice, as I'm just asking and am still learning.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: So, are my expectations too high ?
Yes.
While it's true that the choice of model can make or break a photograph, the reality of the situation is that there are many more beautiful aspiring models than good photographers.
Most decent photographers will try to ensure that models are happy with the results of a trade shoot and a few will even give a few images as a 'thank you' from a paid shoot, but a model marching in and demanding this or that from an experienced photographer will most likely be met with a swift, "NEXT!".
So, are my expectations too high and experiences realistic, or are my expectations on point and experiences unfortunate?
Why not move away from vague expectations? Get firm agreement in advance, in writing/email with the photographer about who pays who how much (if anything), and how many photos (if any) you get.
While it's true that the choice of model can make or break a photograph, the reality of the situation is that there are many more beautiful aspiring models than good photographers.
Most decent photographers will try to ensure that models are happy with the results of a trade shoot and a few will even give a few images as a 'thank you' from a paid shoot, but a model marching in and demanding this or that from an experienced photographer will most likely be met with a swift, "NEXT!".
Thanks for your response. I agree that demanding is not the way to go. I usually try to work out the grounds of a shoot initially with the photographer to see what works between the two of us. The quotes I posted are usually the types of comments I receive when I ask about receiving images from the shoot, etc.
Edward Shaw Photography wrote: Why not move away from vague expectations? Get firm agreement in advance, in writing/email with the photographer about who pays who how much (if anything), and how many photos (if any) you get.
This is something I try to do. However I get a lot of excuses or weird responses like "I'm a free soul" or "Do I have to get my lawyer?". Not sure why people respond to this in that way. I suppose that's why I ask if this type of behavior is typical as a response or if that's not someone worth working with.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: I do a lot of TFP to help photogs build their port, because most TFP work I do doesn't benefit me at this point. Most of my paid work (what little of it there is) definitely doesn't benefit me and doesn't cover for all the TFP work I do.
You don't like the fact that "money is king" yet your only motivation for performing shoots is, by your own admission, the money?
And why in the world would you agree to a Trade shoot if it's not benefiting your portfolio in any way?
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: The quotes I posted are usually the types of comments I receive when I ask about receiving images from the shoot, etc.
If you're asking about receiving images from a paid shoot then I'm not surprised.
On a trade shoot your payment is images; on a paid shoot your payment is the cash. Most photographers will feel that if you're asking for images from a paid shoot then they shouldn't have to be paying you cash as well, or that you should at least offer a discount on your rates.
You don't like the fact that "money is king" yet your only motivation for performing shoots is, by your own admission, the money?
And why in the world would you agree to a Trade shoot if it's not benefiting your portfolio in any way?
I find all this very confusing.
Sorry if this was a confusing statement. I don't shoot for money, I do mostly TFP work. Regardless of money, I like to receive images from my shoot because my work is my art to be and I do a lot of preparation for my shoots (such as buy new clothes, makeup, drive long distances, etc.). I agree to trade shoots to create more beautiful images, as well as to help photogs with their ports. I know that not everyone has a pile of cash sitting around, so I don't mind doing occasional TFP, though I do a lot of it. I love what I do, I don't do it for money. I do it because I get to express myself. Hope that clears it up.
If you're asking about receiving images from a paid shoot then I'm not surprised.
On a trade shoot your payment is images; on a paid shoot your payment is the cash. Most photographers will feel that if you're asking for images from a paid shoot then they shouldn't have to be paying you cash as well, or that you should at least offer a discount on your rates.
I see what you mean, however I don't know how this applies to the fact the photog pays the model to benefit their own port; why do people assume that the model isn't working for photos, even if she's paid? How does a model get paid for a shoot and never get the images? Wouldn't it be better marketing for the photog to allow the paid model to then use their image on the model's port for greater visual distribution? I just don't see how this became a standard: I paid you, so shove off.
I don't think the problem is photographers who think they're better than a model. I think it's about communication and expectations...both of which should be clear prior to the shoot.
If you're performing a Trade shoot you should receive images as payment. I'd recommend only accepting trade shoots from people who can enhance your portfolio.
If you're being compensated with cash, then there is usually an understanding that that is the sole form of payment and no images will be exchanged. When a model wants images on top of payment then the photographer understands that the images have value to you and the shoot should then be performed as a Trade (i.e. you can't have your cake and eat it too).
Many photographers will happily provide images, even if they are paying you, but they don't want it to be expected.
You have no obligation to perform a shoot. If it doesn't meet your needs or you get a situation where a photographer isn't willing to document the terms clearly up-front, then let them find another "free spirit" and deal with the aftermath.
New Art Photo
Posts: 419
Los Angeles, California, US
You mentioned that you were studying to be a paralegal.
Honestly? I think you should go to Law school and forget about modeling.
It's generally sort of a seamy business. And even at the highest level girls are completely disposable. Watch the video on Youtube of Modeling scouts with a room of full of 13 year old girls in bikinis in Siberia.
Girls hit 25 and it's over. I try to be decent and civilized. but I'm sure there are other photogs on MM who aren't.
--And I've encountered a lot of shady girls. Get yourself the best deal you can with each photographer, but recognize the world your playing in.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: why do people assume that the model isn't working for photos, even if she's paid?
Because you can't have it both ways. If you are working for the photos THAT is your payment. You are receiving images that have value to you.
If you're being paid with cash, THAT is your payment.
Expecting monetary compensation + images is unrealistic, unfair and often insulting. What is the photographer getting out of that arrangement if he's paying you + having to provide you with added value in the form of images?
He gets the privilege of your company? He's giving everything in that arrangement and you're getting all the benefits.
Michael Pandolfo wrote: I don't think the problem is photographers who think they're better than a model. I think it's about communication and expectations...both of which should be clear prior to the shoot.
If you're performing a Trade shoot you should receive images as payment. I'd recommend only accepting trade shoots from people who can enhance your portfolio.
If you're being compensated with cash, then there is usually an understanding that that is the sole form of payment and no images will be exchanged. When a model wants images on top of payment then the photographer understands that the images have value to you and the shoot should then be performed as a Trade (i.e. you can't have your cake and eat it too).
Many photographers will happily provide images, even if they are paying you, but they don't want it to be expected.
You have no obligation to perform a shoot. If it doesn't meet your needs or you get a situation where a photographer isn't willing to document the terms clearly up-front, then let them find another "free spirit" and deal with the aftermath.
Thank you for your informative response. I appreciate it.
New Art Photo wrote: You mentioned that you were studying to be a paralegal.
Honestly? I think you should go to Law school and forget about modeling.
It's generally sort of a seamy business. And even at the highest level girls are completely disposable. Watch the video on Youtube of Modeling scouts with a room of full of 13 year old girls in bikinis in Siberia.
Girls hit 25 and it's over. I try to be decent and civilized. but I'm sure there are other photogs on MM who aren't.
--And I've encountered a lot of shady girls. Get yourself the best deal you can with each photographer, but recognize the world your playing in.
Because you can't have it both ways. If you are working for the photos THAT is your payment. You are receiving images that have value to you.
If you're being paid with cash, THAT is your payment.
Expecting monetary compensation + images is unrealistic, unfair and often insulting. What is the photographer getting out of that arrangement if he's paying you + having to provide you with added value in the form of images?
He gets the privilege of your company? He's giving everything in that arrangement and you're getting all the benefits.
They have a name for this, but it slips my mind at the moment
Because you can't have it both ways. If you are working for the photos THAT is your payment. You are receiving images that have value to you.
If you're being paid with cash, THAT is your payment.
Expecting monetary compensation + images is unrealistic, unfair and often insulting. What is the photographer getting out of that arrangement if he's paying you + having to provide you with added value in the form of images?
He gets the privilege of your company? He's giving everything in that arrangement and you're getting all the benefits.
I would assume that allowing me to post the images would give the photographer more visual distribution. It makes sense to me in terms of marketing. Besides, if one is to be fair, does it really hurt the photog to provide the model with a few images? I did portrait photography for a couple years and I was never greedy about it, because I cared about the other person being happy and content with their images and in working with me. To me, that takes precedence.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: why do people assume that the model isn't working for photos, even if she's paid? How does a model get paid for a shoot and never get the images?
People assume it because very often the paid model is very experienced and has no need for more images, could not benefit from them, and very possibly might not even post them at all.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: I just don't see how this became a standard: I paid you, so shove off.
Money is the agreed-on compensation for a model's time and effort. The model works for the client/photographer, gets paid and the job is over. There is no need for anything further.
Well, you DON'T have any rights to the photos. Just because you're in them doesn't make them yours.
Copyright laws in the US dictate that copyright is created the instant the shutter is pressed & belongs to the person who pressed the shutter, except for certain circumstances where a contract states otherwise.
If a photographer is being a pain in the ass, tell them they don't have permission to use your likeness anymore. It may work, or they may laugh in your face. That's the cost of being a model.
And I used to model as well, for several years in fact, so Im not being condescending, just stating facts.
kane
Posts: 1,283
Albertville, Rhône-Alpes, France
Jane Kavanaugh wrote:
I would assume that allowing me to post the images would give the photographer more visual distribution. It makes sense to me in terms of marketing. Besides, if one is to be fair, does it really hurt the photog to provide the model with a few images? I did portrait photography for a couple years and I was never greedy about it, because I cared about the other person being happy and content with their images and in working with me. To me, that takes precedence.
The handful of times I've paid a model it came out of the client's budget for a commercial shoot. Sometimes the client has a specific destination/time that they want to publish the photos that they've paid me to use. Sometimes, I don't like the results of a shoot even though the client is happy. In either of these cases I don't want a model putting pics up on his/her Facebook so I 'get more visual recognition'.
If you get paid money that's your payment. Withholding anything else isn't greedy, you don't go to McDonalds and share your Big Mac with the guy behind the counter. If you get pictures in addition to cash consider yourself lucky. You sound like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
People assume it because very often the paid llama is very experienced and has no need for more images, could not benefit from them, and very possibly might not even post them at all.
Money is the agreed-on compensation for a llama's time and effort. The llama works for the client/photographer, gets paid and the job is over. There is no need for anything further.
So the llama is essentially just a stand-in and the photographer paying the llama is not to be respected? I would gladly put photos in my port that were of a photographer who maybe isn't the best, if I liked the image. And as a llama, I like to see the end result of my hard work. I don't work for heavily retouched sparkly images, I work for art of all sorts. I love to see the end result of what I and the photographer come up with and I love to have it on my computer to be able to look at years down the line. Personally I don't see this as basic human interaction, unless someone wants to be greedy and get a dime and cent off of everything. As a photog, it never killed me to give out a free photo or 10, if I had the time. I like working with people, not bank accounts and robots.
Velvet Paper Photo wrote: Well, you DON'T have any rights to the photos. Just because you're in them doesn't make them yours.
Copyright laws in the US dictate that copyright is created the instant the shutter is pressed & belongs to the person who pressed the shutter, except for certain circumstances where a contract states otherwise.
If a photographer is being a pain in the ass, tell them they don't have permission to use your likeness anymore. It may work, or they may laugh in your face. That's the cost of being a model.
And I used to model as well, for several years in fact, so Im not being condescending, just stating facts.
Robert Jewett
Posts: 2,257
al-MarsÄ, Tunis, Tunisia
I think the trouble starts when there is a combo of new photographers and new models. The expectations are all over the place (not saying this relates to you, BTW).
Generally, the way these things work are pretty set. There will be 50 white knights in here to disagree with me in a moment, but generally speaking...if the photographer is better than the model, she pays (this is only for portfolio development in this niche of internet modeling). If the model is better than the photographer, he pays. If they are about even they can trade.
If the model is paid cash, she shouldn't expect images.
If your expectations deviate from this; that's OK, but you really need to be extra clear because the photographer may not be expecting (or paying attention to) your demands.
Remember, your deal can be anything you can get...but it's really important to spell it out ahead of time if it's unusual.
The handful of times I've paid a model it came out of the client's budget for a commercial shoot. Sometimes the client has a specific destination/time that they want to publish the photos that they've paid me to use. Sometimes, I don't like the results of a shoot even though the client is happy. In either of these cases I don't want a model putting pics up on his/her Facebook so I 'get more visual recognition'.
If you get paid money that's your payment. Withholding anything else isn't greedy, you don't go to McDonalds and share your Big Mac with the guy behind the counter. If you get pictures in addition to cash consider yourself lucky. You sound like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
The photographer could always indicate that he/she doesn't want certain images published, or only provide me with those they are ok with being posted. The latter is what I chose to do as a photog. I think there's a lack of community in the workplace; yes, I wouldn't mind sharing my food out of kindness, though I don't find that comparable. Neither artist is starving; providing the model with some work from the shoot doesn't hurt anyone; sharing of unwanted images can be avoided easily. I think the world has a long way to go if there's such a negative connotation on having your cake and eating it too. There is nothing wrong in enjoying the work I helped create.
So the model is essentially just a stand-in and the photographer paying the model is not to be respected? I would gladly put photos in my port that were of a photographer who maybe isn't the best, if I liked the image. And as a model, I like to see the end result of my hard work. I don't work for heavily retouched sparkly images, I work for art of all sorts. I love to see the end result of what I and the photographer come up with and I love to have it on my computer to be able to look at years down the line. Personally I don't see this as basic human interaction, unless someone wants to be greedy and get a dime and cent off of everything. As a photog, it never killed me to give out a free photo or 10, if I had the time. I like working with people, not bank accounts and robots.
If you don't feel like you're being respected and it bothers you that much, don't work with the photographer. If this is something you enjoy, don't let a few bad apples ruin the experience for you, but you should learn from them as well. Learn what signs to look for that someone might be a douche or too hard to deal with. Lol You have learn how to tell if the trouble is worth what you're getting paid, and that's for any job, not just modeling.
Robert Jewett wrote: I think the trouble starts when there is a combo of new photographers and new models. The expectations are all over the place (not saying this relates to you, BTW).
Generally, the way these things work are pretty set. There will be 50 white knights in here to disagree with me in a moment, but generally speaking...if the photographer is better than the model, she pays (this is only for portfolio development in this niche of internet modeling). If the model is better than the photographer, he pays. If they are about even they can trade.
If the model is paid cash, she shouldn't expect images.
If your expectations deviate from this; that's OK, but you really need to be extra clear because the photographer may not be expecting (or paying attention to) your demands.
Remember, your deal can be anything you can get...but it's really important to spell it out ahead of time if it's unusual.
DAN CRUIKSHANK
Posts: 1,646
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Photographers definitely hold the rights to the images, and in most cases it is the photographer who plans and directs the shoot. They control the flow.
As a model, you are compensated for your time with cash, or images, or Occassionally both (if that is what is agreed upon before the shoot)...
When it comes to you using the images, the photographer is still in control. The photographer can release whatever privileges to you they want, if any.
^^^ all this needs to be agreed upon before you shoot. Written agreements are always a good idea.
If you want more control you can:
A) pay a photographer to do things your way (they still own copyright tho)
B) become a photographer
DAN CRUIKSHANK wrote: Photographers definitely hold the rights to the images, and in most cases it is the photographer who plans and directs the shoot. They control the flow.
As a model, you are compensated for your time with cash, or images, or Occassionally both (if that is what is agreed upon before the shoot)...
When it comes to you using the images, the photographer is still in control. The photographer can release whatever privileges to you they want, if any.
^^^ all this needs to be agreed upon before you shoot. Written agreements are always a good idea.
If you want more control you can:
A) pay a photographer to do things your way (they still own copyright tho)
B) become a photographer
Rights are determined by existing applicable law such as copyright law, rights of privacy and rights of publicity which can be "altered" through the use of a model release and usage agreement.
Compensation is determined by the supply and demand for the service you offer. usage rights and/or release may be a part of that service. Much of what photographers demand is driven by market conditions, not just their whim.
Certainly photographers and models each want to get the best deal they can, but I don't really see is as adversarial as you do. When I shoot, what I'm willing to pay, what rights I need or can give, and what kind of model I need, are all driven by external forces.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: The way I see it happen all too frequently:
"I paid you so you have no rights."
"I paid you so I will decide if you get any images at all."
"You shouldn't be getting paid at all unless you're taking your clothes off."
"I paid you, so if you want images then we will work TFP." (..even though they reached out to me and I wouldn't pay them to work with or pay them for images willingly).
"I don't want to sign paperwork, I'm a free spirit." (paperwork reiterating agreed upon terms)
"Photographers hold all the rights to the images and models get what they get."
There seems to be such a stigma that models are born to this world "to look pretty" (as I've been told) for photographers who will do what they will. As far as legal rights go, it seems that models are lacking as well. Photographers seem to hold all the right at all times and models get no word in their equal contributions.
It may SEEM unfair (& in a lot of ways it may be unfair) but its enshrined in law. Don't like it? Write your federal Congressman & urge them to change it.
Taking the hardline approach. You're there to help execute the photographer's vision. You can have input but being the one to look through that viewfinder, frame the shot, & calculate the setting (not necessarily in that order) makes ALL the difference in the world.
Don't believe me? Get a bunch of your friends (say 5 of them) & do this exercise. Pick an object, any object. Y'all can agree upon the environmental guidelines in how y'all wish to shoot it. You will likely get 5 different shots that are unique to each other of the same object.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: I must be crazy because this seems ridiculous to me. So, are my expectations too high and experiences realistic, or are my expectations on point and experiences unfortunate? I do a lot of TFP to help photogs build their port, because most TFP work I do doesn't benefit me at this point. Most of my paid work (what little of it there is) definitely doesn't benefit me and doesn't cover for all the TFP work I do. (Don't get me wrong, I respect and appreciate all whom I work with).
Then it might behoove you to be more selective in whom you work with.
kane
Posts: 1,283
Albertville, Rhône-Alpes, France
Jane Kavanaugh wrote:
The photographer could always indicate that he/she doesn't want certain images published, or only provide me with those they are ok with being posted. The latter is what I chose to do as a photog. I think there's a lack of community in the workplace; yes, I wouldn't mind sharing my food out of kindness, though I don't find that comparable. Neither artist is starving; providing the model with some work from the shoot doesn't hurt anyone; sharing of unwanted images can be avoided easily. I think the world has a long way to go if there's such a negative connotation on having your cake and eating it too. There is nothing wrong in enjoying the work I helped create.
Ok, think of it this way. If you work for Ford do they give you car, or let you you go for joyrides in one because you 'want to enjoy the work you helped create'? Get a grip.
Abbitt Photography wrote: Rights are determined by existing applicable law such as copyright law, rights of privacy and rights of publicity which can be "altered" through the use of a model release and usage agreement.
Compensation is determined by the supply and demand for the service you offer. usage rights and/or release may be a part of that service. Much of what photographers demand is driven by market conditions, not just their whim.
Certainly photographers and models each want to get the best deal they can, but I don't really see is as adversarial as you do. When I shoot, what I'm willing to pay, what rights I need or can give, and what kind of model I need, are all driven by external forces.
Jane Kavanaugh wrote: The way I see it happen all too frequently:
"I paid you so you have no rights."
"I paid you so I will decide if you get any images at all."
"You shouldn't be getting paid at all unless you're taking your clothes off."
"I paid you, so if you want images then we will work TFP." (..even though they reached out to me and I wouldn't pay them to work with or pay them for images willingly).
"I don't want to sign paperwork, I'm a free spirit." (paperwork reiterating agreed upon terms)
"Photographers hold all the rights to the images and models get what they get."
There seems to be such a stigma that models are born to this world "to look pretty" (as I've been told) for photographers who will do what they will. As far as legal rights go, it seems that models are lacking as well. Photographers seem to hold all the right at all times and models get no word in their equal contributions.
It may SEEM unfair (& in a lot of ways it may be unfair) but its enshrined in law. Don't like it? Write your federal Congressman & urge them to change it.
Taking the hardline approach. You're there to help execute the photographer's vision. You can have input but being the one to look through that viewfinder, frame the shot, & calculate the setting (not necessarily in that order) makes ALL the difference in the world.
Don't believe me? Get a bunch of your friends (say 5 of them) & do this exercise. Pick an object, any object. Y'all can agree upon the environmental guidelines in how y'all wish to shoot it. You will likely get 5 different shots that are unique to each other of the same object.
Then it might behoove you to be more selective in whom you work with.
I suppose it may, but I don't just shoot where it benefits me in terms of upping my status. I love creating new work with photogs at different levels and I certainly don't always shoot for money. I try to be respectful however, and never thought it too much to ask for to have some images from a paid shoot.
So, is it okay to ask a photographer who pays me for some images from the shoot if I bring it up ahead of time? Morally, to me this is a yes, because I know that I'm not looking to exploit or be greedy, it's more from an artistic perspective.
| 
| 
| edu